Democracy in Russia

According to the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea , in the VI century the ancient Slavs were not controlled by one person, but lived in a "democracy". The basis of their economic life was collective land ownership. People were in communities that elected elders . In many communities, offenders were tried according to the law of the cops .

After the emergence of the first Russian cities, in those of them that were located on Novgorod land (including Ladoga , Polotsk , Rostov , Smolensk , Suzdal , etc.), the city council often became the highest authority. In these cities, residents elected city officials at their gatherings. In Novgorod of the XII-XV centuries, the highest elected officials were the posadnik , who was elected from the boyars , and the thousands who were elected from others, and subsequently from all classes. Over time, the veche system became increasingly supplanted by the monarchy . After the Tatar-Mongol invasion and the strengthening of the power of the princes , veche institutes survived only in Novgorod, Pskov and Vyatka , and in other cities they ceased to exist.

In the middle of the XVI century , the creation of the Russian state was completed , the political system of which became an estate-representative monarchy . Within the framework of this system, Zemstvo councils were convened from time to time, which brought together representatives of various classes to discuss the most important issues of domestic and foreign policy. The interests of the feudal aristocracy were represented by the boyar thought , chaired by the tsar and which together with him constituted the supreme organ of state power.

At the turn of the 18th century, Russia began to turn into an empire , and its system acquired the features of absolutism . At the same time, the features of the Russian autocracy manifested themselves that had a negative impact on the democratic processes ^[3] : firstly, only the nobility was its social base, and secondly, personal will and arbitrariness prevailed over legal methods in making political decisions. The role of representative bodies has declined sharply. The place of the boyar Duma was taken by the Senate subordinate to the emperor. It should be mentioned that Peter I carried out a reform of city self-government, as a result of which city management passed into the hands of elected Burmese chambers ( town hall ). However, after the death of Peter I, the rights of elected institutions were again restricted. Catherine II tried to restore urban self-government, but subsequently also refused it.

The expansion of the borders of the Russian state and the Russian Empire usually over time led to the abolition of the institutions of democracy in the annexed territories. So, after the capture of Novgorod in 1478, the veche was liquidated in it, after the reunification of Bryansk and Smolensk in the middle of the 17th century and the subsequent annexation of the eastern territories of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth , Magdeburg law was abolished in them, and after the uprising of 1830, Poland lost its constitution. An example of an exception to this trend was Finland , where the Diet was restored in 1869.

The consequence of the spontaneous flight of peasants from feudal oppression was the emergence of relatively free regions on the outskirts of the country. The special status of these territories could persist for more than 100 years. In particular, in the regions where the Cossacks were widespread, it was in the 16th – 18th centuries. had its own elected bodies. The supreme governing body of the Volga, Don, Terek and Yaik Cossacks was the army circle - the combined arms assembly that elected the chieftain .

In the second half of the 19th century, Tsar Alexander II launched a zemstvo reform , which laid the foundation for the creation of representative provincial, district and city institutions. In parallel, as a result of the abolition of serfdom , the peasants began to re-organize in communities. The supreme body in the community was a rural gathering, choosing the headman . Communities united in volosts , which had their own peasant representative body - volost gathering . The question of leaving the community at first also belonged to the competence of peasant self-government bodies, however, the Stolypin reform of 1906 made it possible for every peasant to freely leave the community and secure allotment of land in private ownership . Self-government bodies were also in other estates : nobles , clergy , merchants and philistines . Both Zemstvo and estate assemblies functioned under the close supervision of governors and police. In addition, the right to participate in them was often limited by property qualifications.

After the abolition of serfdom, the influx of people from the countryside into the cities contributed to workers' self-organization. In 1903 the institute of factory wardens was legalized. The intensification of class friction and the growth of activity of Marxists led to the emergence of the first Soviets of workers' deputies.

The 1905 revolution prompted Tsar Nicholas II to continue democratic reforms. Political parties were legalized and a full-fledged legislative body, the State Duma, was established . After the fall of the autocracy in late February 1917, the country began to slide into anarchy. Supporters of the republic believed that its construction should begin with the adoption of the constitution at the Constituent Assembly , before the convocation of which the official power passed into the hands of the Provisional Government . Due to the indecision of the Provisional Government, the influence of alternative elected bodies of power, the Soviets, increased. Dual power ended with the revolution in October 1917 and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The ruling regime in the USSR claimed to be democratic. The country had a written Constitution , which underwent several revisions. According to the Constitution, the power belonged to the people, and the supreme bodies of power were the Soviets of People's Deputies (hence the word “Soviet” in the name of the state). The deputies of the Soviets indeed often had a common origin. The largest territorial units within the country were called " republics ." In 1936, JV Stalin described the political system of the USSR as “ socialist democracy ” ^[4] . Stalin explained the dominance of one permitted party and the absence of opposition by the fact that class unity and socialist ownership of the means of production ensure the fulfillment of the will of the people. Although the later ideologists of the CPSU did not consider the Stalin period to be a democracy, they described their modern society as democratic:

In fact, of all the above, only economic and social rights were secured ^{[5] [6]} . Until its collapse, the USSR remained the world leader in the field of socio-economic legislation (the right to free education and medicine, the equation of the rights of men and women, the right to work), while in the field of protecting personal and political rights, Soviet legislation did not comply with the declared Western countries to international standards. ^{[7] The} provisions of the Constitution relating to the rights and freedoms of the individual existed only in theory: before World War II, a policy of restricting personal freedom in favor of state interests was carried out, however, even after the war, public disagreement with the official ideology was punished with prison sentences or expulsion from the country, and unauthorized rallies brutally suppressed ^[8] . In particular, citizens did not have the inalienable right to freely discuss their country's policies , and there were no laws or court decisions requiring the state to punish violators who infringe on this right. There was social inequality ^[9] , since the Soviet nomenclature had a privileged status. However, according to one of the most important criteria for a democratic society: equality of opportunity, the USSR remained a world leader until its collapse: the possibility of vertical social mobility ( social elevator ) - the ability of representatives of lower social groups to achieve higher status positions ( positive discrimination ) was significantly higher than in the post-Soviet period ^[10] as well as higher than in Western democracies.

The USSR also occupied leading positions in the world according to the following criterion for a democratic society: social differentiation - the policy of limiting social inequality and restraining income differentiation between higher and lower social groups in the USSR contributed to the fact that differentiation of population incomes , the level of social inequality in the USSR was several times lower than in the post-Soviet period, and also significantly lower than in developed Western countries: if in 1989 the payment of higher and lower social groups differed 4 times , then in modern Russia this indicator is 13, in Norway and Sweden about 6, in the USA - 15 times. ^[11] At various times, certain nationalities were discriminated against by the state ^[12] . At the same time, the friendship of peoples was not an invention of Soviet propaganda, but actually existed in the collective consciousness of Soviet society. ^[13] Gender equality has not become an integral part of either the culture of society or real state policy ^[14] . However, in the USSR, significant progress was made in the practical realization of gender equality not only in comparison with the Russian Empire, but also in developed Western countries ( New Woman , Marxist feminism ): women began to occupy the highest posts in the power hierarchy (People's Commissar for Charity A. Kollontai , the first woman -minister in world history), for the first time in the history of Russia, wives were equalized with husbands (including property rights), illegitimate children received equal rights with children born in a legal marriage, the percentage was simplified a fool of divorce, the right to establish paternity in the courts was granted, state aid was established for pregnant women, single and large mothers, the order “Maternal Glory” was established, giving significant benefits to the owner, however, by a decree of February 15, 1947, marriage between Soviet citizens and by foreigners. ^{[15] The} state also resorted to the economic exploitation of citizens, including using free or extremely cheap labor of prisoners , " limiters ", students , etc. ^[16] The active participation of citizens in managing the affairs of society remained only a wish ^[17] . Elections to the Soviets were uncontested, and the Soviets did not have the full power ^[18] . However, deputies of all levels were elected on the basis of an imperative mandate and were called upon to fulfill the mandates of voters who, unlike Western democracies, had the right to recall a deputy if they did not fulfill their promises. ^[19] The main decision-making center in the country was the party structures that determined the development strategy of society. ^[9] . An example of the contradiction between the system described in the Soviet Constitution and the real system of legal relations is the fact that during the 1930s the greatest power in the USSR was possessed by I.V. Stalin, who at that time did not hold any public office in the executive branch.

The period of "developed socialism" 1975-1985. and the contraction of the non- defense industry economy began to negatively affect the legitimacy of the Soviet system ^[20] . In 1985, M. S. Gorbachev announced the beginning of economic reforms , but soon to fight against their opponents among the party nomenclature, he proclaimed glasnost and democratization . Gorbachev and other reform advocates called the pre-Soviet period " totalitarian ." They managed to remove the CPSU from control over the media , elections to the Soviets, the executive branch and law enforcement agencies ^[21] . The past in 1989-1990. the election of people's deputies ( USSR and RSFSR ) was accompanied by competition among party groups and high activity of the population. However, the aggravation of the economic crisis in 1990 accelerated the decline in the attractiveness of the Soviet system in the eyes of the people. If at the beginning of 1991 the majority supported the preservation of the USSR , then by the end of that year the population of almost all union republics supported their independence through referenda.

The collapse of the USSR exacerbated the split among Russian political elites ^[22] . There was a sharp struggle between disparate factions , and there was no consensus on the norms and rules of political behavior.

In the early 1990s, the political climate of Russia was characterized by a relatively high level of individual freedom , but also by contradictory legislation and a low level of law and order . In 1993, the confrontation between the federal executive and legislative branches turned into a crisis, which President B. N. Yeltsin resolved by force, having dispersed both the Supreme Council and the Constitutional Court. Some political scientists saw signs of illiberal democracy in these events ^[23] . On December 12 of that year, the new Constitution of Russia was adopted, which granted broad powers to the President. Contrary to the fact that Yeltsin lost popularity, he won the election in 1996 .

According to Yu. A. Krasin, Doctor of Philosophy, the liberal liberals who came to power in the 1990s tried to imitate the Western model of the liberal model of democracy on Russian soil and this experiment failed, discrediting liberalism and the idea of ​​democracy. ^[24] According to Krasin, shortly after the emergence of “democratic institutions of power turned out to be hostages of state bureaucratic, oligarchic and criminal structures” and the clan interests of the corporate organized ruling elite, which were mainly concerned about their own well-being and profit, were behind the democratic facade of the political system not about the good of society. ^[24] Krasin believes that the authoritarian rollback of the 1990s put Russian society on the brink of loss of controllability and decay, an alternative to which was the course towards administrative strengthening of statehood in the 2000s. ^[24]

Under V.V. Putin , measures were taken to bring regional legislation in line with federal. At the same time, the ruling group sought to centralize power and squeeze the opposition out of the political space. The latter led to an increasing deviation of the political system from the standards of liberal democracy , and in particular, in 2005, experts from the American non-governmental organization Freedom House began to classify Russia as non-free countries ^[25] . On the other hand, some pro-Kremlin analysts introduced the term “ sovereign democracy ” to describe the prevailing form of government, which carries the application for the system to meet certain criteria of democracy and at the same time emphasizes its difference from liberal democracy ^{[26] [27]} . According to supporters of sovereign democracy, in modern Russian conditions, the mechanisms used in other countries to protect the minority and individual citizens from the dictatorship of the majority are associated with risks to preserve the sovereignty of the state and to implement policies in the interests of the whole nation ^{[28] [29]} .

Some political scientists classify the political system in Russia at the beginning of the 21st century as electoral and delegative pseudo-democracy (imitation democracy) with elements of bureaucratic authoritarianism ^{[30] [31] [32] [33]} . They believe that relations between citizens and the state in Russia are dominated by the state, which thus gets the opportunity to control the preferences of citizens while maintaining the institution of elections, the elections held do not reflect real political competition ^[34] , and the executive authorities are practically not accountable to either voters or legislative bodies.

In 2006, a law was passed to abolish the minimum threshold for voter turnout ^[35] and the columns “against all” ^[36] .

In 2009, among democratic values, the greatest support in Russia was freedom of speech , the media, and religion ; strict legality ; government with the participation of all citizens on an equal footing ^{[37] [38]} . More than half of the population believed that Russia needed democracy ^{[39] [40]} , but critical attitude towards its implementation was also widespread. The success of democratic reforms was associated with the functioning of the state and a stable economy. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of the population did not see the opportunity to influence the adoption of state decisions ^[41] . Involvement in public organizations was low ^[42] .

2010s

A surprise for sociologists and government officials in the Russian Federation was a noticeable drop in support for “sovereign democracy” by the Russian population, an indicator of which was the ruling party’s loss of a constitutional majority in the Russian State Duma in the 2011 elections, rallies against election fraud, held in a number of Russian cities, and in Moscow gathered for the first time since the 1990s, tens of thousands of people, followed by a fall , and later a sharp rise in the popularity index ^[43] of V.V. Putin .

Representatives of the political elite also spoke about the need for a response to the changed mood after the 2011 elections; in the beginning of 2012, President Dmitry A. Medvedev introduced draft laws on the return of direct elections of governors, on simplifying the registration of political parties, and others in the VI State Duma. In political theory attention turned to the institution of a nationwide referendum, the capabilities of modern network technologies, etc. ^[44]

In April 2012, a law was passed on the procedure for direct elections of the heads of regions in the Russian Federation ^[45] . Along with the return of direct elections, canceled in 2004 ^[46] , a municipal filter was introduced.

In the period 2014-2015, laws were passed in 42 constituent entities of the Federation that abolish direct elections of mayors, including in administrative centers, 43 regions refused direct elections of city heads before 2014. Only 8 cities of the country choose mayors. These are Khabarovsk, Anadyr, Kemerovo, Tomsk, Abakan, Yakutsk, Novosibirsk, Maykop ^[47] . Thus, plebiscite democracy at the municipal level was turned into parliamentary .

According to some publications, in subsequent years, elections at a higher level were of a referendum nature ^{[48] [49]} , the authorities (the president and the ruling party) offered the people a candidate from the party in power, without any special alternative (column “against all”), and the voter voted for or against . At the same time, the turnout was constantly decreasing.

By 2018, with the help of the municipal filter , the referendum nature of the elections and the absence of a turnout threshold, the authorities completely disavowed the election of governors and heads of municipalities, and the replacement of regional managers turned from a democratic procedure to a bureaucratic one ^[50] .

Below are the values ​​of the democracy indexes in Russia by various methods, as well as the index value for ideal democracy according to the methodology.

• State structure of Russia
• History of democracy
• Russian history
• friendship of Peoples
• Election observation
• Elections in Russia
• Democracy Index
• Democracy
• Veche

• Baranov N. A. Transformations of Modern Democracy: a Textbook . SPb .: Balt. state tech. Univ., 2006.
• Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history. Lecture course
• Georgiev P.V. The image of Athenian democracy in the historiosophy of Russian idea: democracy as antisocial in Russia // Social: meaning, search in the modern cultural and historical space and discourse. - Materials of international scientific and practical. conferences. - Kaz., 2011 .-- S. 252-262.
• Georgiev P.V. Political ideals of Russian liberalism and Athenian democracy // Historical knowledge: Theoretical foundations and communicative practices - M, 2006. - P. 446-447.

• Pantin I. K. Problems and contradictions of the formation of democracy in Russia
• Overcoming the difficulties of democratic development - a series of publications in the Russian Journal
• Ostap Carmody. 501 year since the death of Russian democracy. OpenSpace.ru. 01/12/2011
• Barbashin M. Yu. Institutional democracy and social dilemmas: the experience of post-Soviet transformations. Saarbrucken, Germany: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing , 2011.168 p.