Consolidation Of Democracy In Post-Soviet Russia Essays

Consolidation of Democracy in Post-Soviet Russia Russian History Consolidation of Democracy in Post-Soviet Russia Introduction The fall of the Communist regime in the Soviet Union was more than a political event. The powerful interaction and fusion between politics and economics that characterized the state socialist system created a situation that was unique for the successor states of the Soviet Union. The penetration of the Communist regime into every facet of life left the Russian people with little democratic traditions. Russia faces the seemingly impracticable task of economic liberalization and democratization. This is combined with a necessity to answer nationalist and ethnic questions that have plagued Russia for centuries. This paper addresses the problems of creating a stable democracy in Russia. The prospects for a stable democracy in Russia are limited at best. I will outline some of the concerns that academics have in the consolidation of Russian democracy. What is paramount to note is that a stable democracy must adequately address what Ken Jowitt calls the ?developmental trinity?: nation-building; capitalism and democracy. The dilemma that is especially relevant to Russia it that these conditions are often contradictory. The often messy business of politically reconstructing a nation defies traditional democratic ideals. The establishment of democratic institutions can hinder the development of a market economy and, conversely, programs that are designed to enhance capitalist expansion often are antagonistic towards democratic goals (Jowitt 7). These seemingly endless Catch-22's are at the heart of difficulties facing Russia in its attempt to create a stable democracy. The Process of Creating A Nation-State The question of who is the playing the game and what makes the playing field is an important one for the Russian Federation. Ethnic and nationalist questions plagued the Soviet Union and continue to stress the Russia Federation during its nascent period. The dynamics of center-periphery relations provides Moscow with some of the greatest challenges in establishing a stable democracy. Phillipe Smitter writes, ?There is no simply democratic way of deciding what a nation and its corresponding political unit should be? (Smitter 66). Later in his article, he writes ?those that have not yet resolved the dilemma of defining their national and territorial boundaries are unlikely to make much more progress in other domains? (Smitter 73). The dilemma facing the Russian Federation is that it finds itself with a charge of establishing and following democratic institutions, while at the same time facing secessionary pressures that seem to require extra-democratic means to preserve the integrity of the nation. Nationalism in multiethnic areas in the Russian Federation has provided a substantial challenge for democratization. There is a direct relationship between democratization and ethnic peace (Smitter 72). In a democratically weak society, ethnicity assumes a stronger role, and when democracy and ethnicity are balanced, political stability is possible. As a result of a lack of democratic institutions and channels for dialogue, Russia's inhabitants are now increasingly identifying themselves as members of ethnic groups rather than as citizens of the Russian Federation (Drobizheva). An important development in center-periphery relations is the growing importance of ?economic nationalism,? an effort to create an economic basis for political independence. Economic nationalism is a protective defense against the Russian federal government's economic dominance. Alternatively, it is also a sign that the republics wish to retain relations with Moscow since politics remains primarily in the hands of the center (Drobizheva). For example, Tatarstan and Sakha-Yakutia both have a wealth of natural resources, giving them a potential advantage in economic development and a desire to establish control over these resources. Tatarstan, for example, strives to sell its oil at world market prices in foreign markets to generate income, and in 1993-94, the local governments in Tatarstan and Yakutia sought economic decentralization in Russia by refusing to pay federal taxes. Consequently, an agreement reached between the federal government and the republics gave the latter what they wanted: increased economic autonomy (Drobizheva). Further inquiry into the agreements with Tartarsan demonstrates the flexibility the Yeltsin regime is willing to employ in dealing with possible powder-keg situations. A treaty signed on February 15, 1994 attempted to mollify the tensions on both sides. The treaty affirmed Tartarsan right to its own ?international and economic relations? and, as previously noted, provided substantial autonomy in economic issues for Tartarsan. Smoothing over

Temperance Movement and Document Essays

Temperance Movement and Document Essays Temperance Movement and Document Paper Temperance Movement and Document Paper The 18th Amendment 1. What is your first reaction to the 18th amendment? My first reaction to the 18th amendment was why do they have this in the first place? Why do they think alcohol is the reason for everything? 2. Do you think this amendment could be passed today? Why or why not? No, because they see what happened before. This time it wouldn’t be better at all. 3. Why do you think some Americans in 1918 might have wanted this amendment? Because they thought alcohol was the cause of the all the problems and corruption. Document A 1. (Sourcing) When was this document written? Was this before or after the passage of the 18th Amendment? This document was written on September 20, 1920. This was after the passage of the 18th Amendments. 2. Why might the National Temperance Council have met in 1920 (after the passage of the 18th Amendment) What do you predict they will say? I think they might talk about why they passed the 18th Amendment. 3. (Close Reading) What does the National Temperance Council claim is caused by alcohol? They claim that everything wrong with someone was caused by the alcohol. 4. (Context)Do you find these claims convincing? Do you think people at the time found these claims convincing? Explain. I don’t find these claims convincing. However, at the time people would find these claims convincing because they wouldn’t know anything else they would believe what the government is saying. Document B 1. (Sourcing) When was this document written? Was this before or after the passage of the 18th Amendment? This document was written on November 14, 1922. This was after the 18th Amendment. 2. (Close Reading) What is the â€Å" Hooch Murder Bill†? The â€Å"Hooch Murder Bill† states that if someone sells alcohol and the buyer dies they can be tried for murder. . (Context) Based on this document , who is the Anti-Saloon League blaming for the sale of alcohol during Prohibition? Who do you think they singled this group? The Anti-Saloon League is blaming foreigner. I think they are blaming them because alcohol is part of their culture, and they are not from America. Document C and D 1. (Sou rcing) When were these posters made? Was that before or after the passage of the 18th Amendment? These posters were made in 1913. These posters were before the passage of the 18th Amendment. Who published these posters? What was their perspective? Scientific Temperance Federation published these posters. Their perspective was alcohol was the cause of everything bad. 2. (Close reading) According to these posters, what are the two reasons why Prohibition is a good idea? According to these posters prohibition is a good idea was because it kills infants and it destroys a child’s birthright. 3. (Close Words) Look at the words used in Document C. These were considered â€Å"scientific† categories. What does that tell you about science at this time? By looking at these words in Document C, I can tell science at this time was only based on assumption. . (Context) Using these posters, explain some of the beliefs about children that were common in the early 20th century. Do you think these beliefs are silly or reasonable? Explain. I think these reason beliefs were silly, because they never proved that alcohol was the problems. They only made is through assumptions. They saw birth defects, poor work man ships, disabilities, memory lose etc. They saw alcohol was a cause and with that they passed the Amendment. They didn’t think the corruption was the cause of all the problems. |