For the most part, the terms and conditions debating the nature of Russia's elections have been how and to what degree Putin's Kremlin is anti-democratic and authoritarian. The major players in the debate have been most of the Western media covering Russia and a few local pundits debating with their Western colleagues. The Kremlin did not involve itself in this debate as it was invented and controlled by others clearly not in sympathy with Putin's project for Russia.

The debate about Russia's democracy is really about the claim that Putin is becoming an autocrat, which of course assumes that he was not an autocrat four years ago. Was Putin a democrat four years ago? Was Russia a democracy four years ago? Putin's record as president consistently shows that he does not think or act in terms of a democratic or anti-democratic dichotomy. Add to this a noteworthy, but almost forgotten speech, Putin made at the start of his presidency in 2000. Putin made it very clear that he has no intention of following a foreign model of political and economic development for Russia.

Were the parliamentary elections and the presidential vote fair and democratic? There is scant evidence that they were truly unfair and undemocratic. However, there is no doubt the Kremlin used the electronic media to its advantage and Putin benefited as an incumbent. It is true that opposition candidates were not heard nearly as much as Putin, but anyone watching prime time television during the election season had ample opportunity learn what parties and individual politicians supported. Public visibility was not the problem for Kremlin opponents -- the problem was their message.

With one notable exception, political opponents of the Kremlin were not overly concerned with the nature of Russia's democracy; they were more frustrated that Putin, overwhelming popular, and his allies were able to capture most of the political spectrum rendering opposition irrelevant. The more irrelevant the opposition became when faced with the Kremlin electioneering machine, the more it denounced Putin as authoritarian and anti-democratic.

It is uncharitable to say, but Putin's opposition did not, in any meaningful sense, promote the idea of democracy in either election. Running against Putin as a person ended in folly and itself challenged the democratic process.

Democracy is not just about institutions, political parties and politicians. Democracy is also about plurality of ideas. Beyond using administrative resources, it was the realm of ideas that sealed Putin's victories. During the parliamentary election, the opposition focused on what when wrong in Russia during the turbulent 1990s under former president Boris Yeltsin.

The Kremlin's surrogate political party ran a passive campaign, self-confident of Putin's record since 2000. The Kremlin ran of economic reformist credentials, balanced budgets, lower personal tax burden and paid-up pensions. The list could go on. The Kremlin used the democratic process to promote its successes -- the electorate followed suit, especially Russia's growing middle-class.

Just days before the presidential election, Putin named a new government with the mission to start another round of economic and administrative reform (read: anti-corruption). The power of the incumbent was again made visible. For four years, Putin has -- rightly or otherwise -- been credited for Russia's expanding and stable economy.

He was shown himself to be a defender of Russia's national interests abroad, as well a protector of the poor and the country's growing entrepreneurial classes. For a man who is called authoritarian, he has a remarkable record of supporting a wide array of liberal ideas. Putin's opposition simply could not compete against a candidate touting so many popular supported credentials, irrespective of media coverage.

At one point, Putin's Kremlin will find itself interested in debating the nuances of democracy in terms that the West can understand. If Putin is successful in reforming the state bureaucracy and economy, he will be faced with forces in society that will eventually demand a stronger political voice. Once that happens, Russia's democracy might take on some meaning, as there will be something to debate -- always the most important element that makes a democracy worth having and protecting.

(Peter Lavelle is a Moscow-based analyst and author of the electronic newsletter on Russia "Untimely Thoughts" (untimely-thoughts.com).

All rights reserved. Copyright 2004 by United Press International. Sections of the information displayed on this page (dispatches, photographs, logos) are protected by intellectual property rights owned by United Press International. As a consequence, you may not copy, reproduce, modify, transmit, publish, display or in any way commercially exploit any of the content of this section without the prior written consent of by United Press International.

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News