Running Head: TRANTSITIONAL DEMOCRACY IN RUSSIA

Transitional Democracy in Russia:

The Effect of History on the Democratization of Russia
Samantha Pitz
Global Connections
Instructor: Gregory Falls
Global Studies and World Languages Academy
Tallwood High School

ABSTRACT
The implementation of democracy in the modern world is considered to be the norm, but there
are certain countries which have not met the norm. One of such countries is the Russian
Federation. Following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has struggled with defining its
modern government, having been caught between Western-style democracy and Soviet-style
socialism. Numerous factors have contributed to this blurred classification of the Russian
government, such as the lasting historical effects of Russian history on the political structure and
the mentality of the Russian population. The Russians particularly struggle with the process of

TRANSITIONAL DEMOCRACY IN RUSSIA 2

implementing democracy due to the fact that they themselves have never experienced a
democracy but also due to the fact that there is no other example of such a transition that Russia
is making ever in history. The understanding of the modern Russian political system and the
influences that have led to it is not only crucial to the future of Russia itself, but also to the future
of the world as a whole. An understanding of Russias government is critical to modern politics
as Russia is one of the world's leading powers and it has great influence over critical regions of
the world.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Introduction
Limitations of Study
Methodology
Literature Review
Discussion
Brief Summary of Soviet History
Transition to a Capitalist Economy
Attitudes of the Russian Populace
Political Institutions and Structure
Conclusion
References
Tables
Appendix A
Appendix B

Transitional Democracy in Russia

3
4
5
6
8
11
11
12
14
17
20
21
24
29
33

Introduction
The transition from the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation in 1991 has left Russia in
a state of transitional democracy, which has some elements of both the old Soviet system and
modern democratic systems. Elements left over from the old communist system, such as an elite
group of leaders, have posed several difficult obstacles to democratization. The corruption that
has plagued the country, especially since the rise of Boris Yeltsin to power, has led the Russian
populace to have a vast distrust in the government. As well, the power distribution as allocated
by the Russian Constitution has given more power to the President and less to the legislative and
judicial branches. Although the majority of the Russian population is generally in favor of a
transition to democracy through the creation of a government system unique to Russia, the
democratization process has been greatly impeded by historical impacts on the economy and the
political system, such as the consolidation of power among the executive branch and the lasting
effects of communist society.
The transition of Russia to a democracy is key to modern politics as Russia is one of the
world's leading powers and it has great influence over critical regions of the world. However,
tensions between the West and Russia have been rising because of current events such as the
annexation of Crimea. The roots of the discord between Western countries, especially the United
States, and Russia can be traced back to the Soviet Union and its dissolution. The study of
Russias history and how it has impacted the countrys modern government is crucial to Russias
growth as well as the ability of Western governments to cooperate with Russia on the global
stage.
Limitations of Study
Some of the obstacles faced by this project during the initial research stage can be traced
to a few limitations set upon the research: the vast span of Russian history, outdated research,
and the inability to travel to Russia. As the project focuses on Russian history and its effect on

the modern government, some of the most crucial parts like travelling to Russia and conducting
surveys on Russian citizens, could not be accomplished.
Historical Limitation. In order to analyze the effects that the whole of Russian history,
from the formation of Kievan Rus to the collapse of the Soviet Union, has had on Russias
current government, the time allotted for research would have to be extended. However, due to
the inability of such time to be allotted, the author has self-imposed the historical limitation and
has chosen to focus on the impact that Russian history, specifically the Soviet Era, has had on the
modern government.
Research Limitation. Much of the research found by the author consisted of articles or
historical analyses and essays written in the post-Soviet era. However, although most of the
documents found had been written in the post-Soviet era, they had been written in the 1990s and
early 2000s. The authors of the documents that were used to contribute to this paper were
primarily American and Russian authors. As well, some statistical data that was used was
conducted by a Russian program with the aid of a European program.
Travel Limitation. The inability for the author to travel to Russia at the time of research
for the paper has meant that a survey to be taken by Russian citizens that evaluates their feelings
about the modern government could not be given. Such survey would have greatly aided the
analysis of popular opinion on the modern government in comparison to the previous Soviet
government.
Methodology
As stated in the limitations, there was a historical limitation self-imposed by the author
on the research of the project; and therefore most of the documents that were searched for
focused on the impact of Soviet history on the modern Russian government. Most of the research
found was qualitative, with very little sources containing any quantitative data.
Much of the research was found through Google Search, however many of the documents
found were scholarly essays or working papers from universities. Many documents found were

written by well-respected authors who had been distinguished in their fields. In addition to
Google Search, the author also used the Gale Database to find essays that focused on
democratization and globalization in Russia.
As well as finding documents online to aid to the research process, the author also used
two textbooks to provide further insight. One textbook, World Politics, is currently used at the
collegiate level at universities such as Georgetown University. The other textbook, Comparative
Politics: Domestic Responses to Global Challenges, is the current textbook used for AP
Comparative Government, which is a class that includes the study of Russias government.
In addition to written research, the author conducted two interviews one with Mrs.
Lyudmyla Yuzhbabenko and another with Dr. Sergei Khrushchev. Mrs. Lyudmyla Yuzhbabenko
is the current teacher of Russian Language at the Global Studies and World Languages Academy
at Tallwood High School and was born in Odessa, Ukraine during the time of the Soviet Union.
Dr. Sergei Khrushchev is the son of former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and has resided in
the United States since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Questions asked during both
interviews included:

What do you believe is the best method to evaluate a countrys democratic achievement?
Do you believe that Russia is rightfully considered a democracy?
Do you think that the current sanctions imposed upon Russia as a result of the annexation

of Crimea hinder Russias advance towards democracy?

Do you believe that Putins desire to centralize power within the Kremlin will undermine

the democratic principles already set in place?

How has the history of corruption among the political elite impacted how Russians view

the government?
What do you believe the future of Russia is if the current system of government
continues?

Literature Review
In World Politics, Frieden, Lake, and Schultz provide information on global systems both
during and after the Cold War. Frieden, Lake, and Schultz provide testimony to the importance of
the study of Russia and the democratization of its government through the provided information.
Frieden, Lake, and Schultz analyze the effect the Soviet Union had on the world during the Cold
War and how its dissolution in 1991 affected the modern world.
In Domestic and International Influences on the Collapse of the Soviet Union (1991)
and Russias Initial Transition to Democracy (1993), Stoner-Weiss and McFaul analyze the
domestic and international effects that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the
implementation of democracy. Stoner-Weiss and McFaul also state that the transition to
democracy in Russia has already been successful due to the adoption of the Constitution in 1993.

In the textbook Comparative Politics: Domestic Responses to Global Challenges, Hauss

analyzes the impact of history on the current Russian government. Hauss describes how and why
events ranging in time from the Russian Revolution in 1917 to the actions of the current
government have occurred and what impact they have had on Russian politics. A great deal of
information is expressed on the late Soviet government and the early democratic government of
Yeltsin and Putin. Hauss also asserts that the Russian populace has a distrust in their leaders and
this prevents democracy from fully succeeding.
The importance of Russian history to the government is analyzed by Persson in Russian
History A Matter of National Security. Persson asserts that the Russian government has
dictated that the history of Russia is crucial to their national security policy. Persson notes that
the government is looking to create a national identity with the aid of its history.
The attitudes of the Russian people towards democracy are analyzed in statistics collected
by the EU-Russia Center/Levada Center Research in Voices from Russia: Society, Democracy,
Europe. The centers conducted surveys among the Russian people to gather statistics on their
feelings about the Russian government of both the past and present. Much of the finding indicate
the Russians prefer a government closer to the Soviet system but that still contains aspects of
democracy. The study also analyzes the Russian populations feeling about the West and Western
policies.
The attitudes of Russians toward democracy are further asserted in a working paper from
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace titled Are Russians Undemocratic?, Colton
and McFaul analyze Russian feelings about democracy through a number of different lenses.
Such lenses include the practice of democracy and the idea and components of democracy.
Colton and McFaul analyze the feelings of the Russian people in a manner similar to the EU-

Russia Center/Levada Research Center, but they also provide additional deconstruction of the
results rather than just straight statistics. Similar to the pressing need today to discuss the effect
of Crimea on politics, Colton and McFaul analyze the impact of the events in Chechnya on the
Russian government and the populations view of democracy.
In a working paper from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace titled
Democratization and Globalization: The Case of Russia, Fedorov reviews the political status in
Russia, asserting that according to historical trends the Russian populace favors more collective
societies. Fedorov also comments on the Russian elites driving power in the government and
their attitudes against democracy. In his paper, Fedorov also analyzes if it is the Russian
populations attitudes towards democracy that hold the country back from full democratization.
In various statistics cited by Fedorov, most assert that Russians are actually more in favor of
democratic system but coupled with the retention of some hints of the Soviet past, such as a
limitation on freedoms if necessary for the preservation of the state.
In Illiberal Democracy and Vladimir Putins Russia, Mitchell analyzes the roots of
Russian illiberal democracy, stating that the current constitution is more similar to the French
constitution than to the Constitution of the United States. Mitchell also analyzing the sources of
power in Russia and how officials can rise to power in the country through undemocratic means.
Hale asserts that elections in Russia are not completely free but managed in Russias
Elections and Managed Democracy. It is noted that the media in Russia is predominantly
controlled by the government and therefore favors certain candidates over others. Hale also notes
that during the writing of the Constitution, a greater amount of power was vested in the executive
branch of government rather than the legislative or judicial branches.

In Myers article, Opponents Call Putins Overhaul Plan a Step Back, he notes that
many critics are critiquing Putins plan as a step backwards for the country. Many of the critics
noted within the article state that this step backward is an attempt to recreate the Soviet Union.
Myers also asserts that this plan is Putins method of consolidating power within the Kremlin to
take power away from the citizens.
In The Democratisation Process in Russia, Hatipoglu analyzes how the theory of
democratization has failed in Russia. Hatipoglu asserts that certain aspects of Russian society,
such as the economy, have impeded the success of democracy in Russia. Hatipoglu notes that
both the political and economic spheres in Russia must be reformed at the same time in order for
the theory of democratization to work. However, the Russians have been unable to do this
because of the failing economy in contemporary Russia.

Discussion
Russian history has not only influenced the acceptance of democracy in Russian society, but also
governmental structure and institutions as well as the formation of a capitalist economy within
the country. Therefore, a more comprehensive analysis of Russian history is crucial to
understanding democratic achievement within Russia. Trends among the Russian populace
suggest a growing approval of democracy, while government institutions which were based on
similar Soviet bodies has impeded democratic achievement within the country.
Brief Summary of Soviet History. A comprehensive explanation of Soviet history must first be
established so as to then examine the effects on modern government. As roughly seventy years of
Russian history has been composed of Soviet history, it has had the most profound impact on
government and democratic achievement in Russia.

The foundations for the Soviet Union began with the idea of democratic centralism. This
idea had been proposed by Vladimir Lenin and debate over this topic led to a split within the
government between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. In 1917, the tsar of Russia was taken
out of power and replaced by a provisional government, which struggled to maintain their hold
on power as both tsarist and Bolshevik forces fought to take the power from them. After a brief
civil war in 1918, Lenin and the Bolshevik party officially formed the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics in 1922.
The rise of Josef Stalin after Lenins death brought a period of industrialization and
advancement upon Russia. It is noted the quarter-century that Stalin ruled the Soviet Union was
one of the most painful periods in all of history (Hauss, 2006). Under Stalin, Russia experienced
periods of rapid industrialization as farms were collectivized and five-year plans were created to
help boost economic output. However, many Russians suffered greatly as Stalin led purges
throughout the country to get rid of any opposition to collectivization or the communist party.
After Stalins rule over the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev took over and loosened
censorship in the country and ended the worst of Stalins policies. Also during Khrushchevs
time in power, the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred, which is the closest the world has ever come to
nuclear war. Khrushchev was then replaced by a group of politicians who were led by Leonid
Brezhnev. The Brezhnev leadership was then replaced by Mikhail Gorbachev, who implemented
the policies of glasnost and perestroika. The government at the time Gorbachev came to power in
was primarily controlled by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU).
The collapse of the Soviet Union was caused by many factors, primarily internal factors.
One of the factors that contributed to the collapse is the questioning of the ideals the Soviet
Union was founded on. The Soviet social contract whereby the state provided cradle to the

grave services and guaranteed employment was gradually failing (Stoner-Weiss and McFaul,
2009). The Soviet economy was also suffering and was in desperate need of reformation, which
Gorbachev failed to do. A combination of these factors as well as other international factors led
to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 (Stoner-Weiss and McFaul, 2009).
Transition to a Capitalist Economy. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the transition from a
communist economy to a capitalist economy took place. The transition to a capitalist economy
has sped up the democratization process in Russia as the characteristics of a capitalist economy
promote privatization and global which in turn promote democratic principles within Russian
society.
Although the transition to a capitalist economy has greatly benefitted the state, the steps
taken to reach that point involved many obstacles. First of all, Russia was the only country to
ever transition from a communist economy to a capitalist society. Therefore, there was no model
nor example to base their transition on, and thusly there was no other country that could fully
help them to transition. Secondly, the new Russian government had to focus on reforming all
aspects of the economy. It was noted that the most difficult part involved the transformation of
property rights (Mau, 2004). The Yeltsin administration focused primarily on this reform in a
two-pronged effort. Hauss (2006) explains the first prong of the privatization reform:
The first occurred spontaneously, mostly among small firms in the service sector. About
95 percent of the restaurants, shoe repair stores, gas stations, barber shops, and other such
businesses that existed before 1991 gained private owners, usually the men and women
who managed them under the Communists.
The second prong took the form of the development of shares and stocks in private corporations.
In 1992, in order to help with the economic reforms all citizens got a voucher worth 10,000

rubles, which they could sell, use to buy stock in privatized companies, or invest in larger funds
that bought or managed shares in those companies (Hauss, 2006). In an interview with Mrs.
Lyudmyla Yuzhbabenko (2015), she mentions that at the adoption of the capitalist economy
people actually got more opportunities to develop their business and build their own business
because in the Soviet Union, nobody had that chance to have any kind of private business. This
occurrence of privatization has greatly helped to advance the acceptance of democracy among
Russian society.
Despite the apparent success of privatization of business in Russia, there are still
imperfections that remain in the economy. The Russian economy is still too reliant on volatile
oil and gas prices; too many monopolies have not been reformed; and the state sector is still too
large for an emerging economy (McFaul, 2004). This poses a particular obstacle to the
transition of the Russian state towards democracy because this limits the ability to which
businesses are able to be privatized.
Attitudes of the Russian Populace. Understanding the attitudes that the Russian populace has
concerning democracy and the implementation of it are crucial in order to understand how the
government has come to be what it is today. Trends since the early 1990s up until the early 2010s
highlight the impression democracy has had on the population in Russia, which in turn shows the
willingness of the people to accept democracy. These trends also explain reasons behind the
structuring of the Russian government.
Before assessing what kind of democracy Russia needs, it must first be established how
Russians feel about democracy in general. As shown in Table 1, when asked if democracies are
not any good at maintaining order, 31% of respondents disagreed with this statement, although

28% agreed. Likewise, when asked if democracies are indecisive and have too much
squabbling (Colton and McFaul, 2001), 36% of people disagreed with the statement, while only
28% of people agreed. As shown in Table 2, when asked to choose between two statements, 59%
of the population chose that democratic freedoms should always be the foundation of the
society; under no circumstances the power can be centralized (Russian Public Opinion: 20102011, 2012). Thus, Russians tend to have mixed feelings about democracy in general. Some
believe that democracy is positive, while some believe it is negative. Further, as shown in Table
3, when Russian were asked about their feelings towards the West and Western democracy in
2000, 55% answered that Western democracy could be benefitted from a lot but 25% answered it
would not be suitable for Russia. However, in 2006 when the same question was asked, 45%
answered that Western democracy could be benefitted from a lot and 30% answered it would not
be suitable for Russia.
In Table 4, data shows that the Russian populace is starting to believe that Russia is
becoming a democratic society. The data shows that the percentage of the populace that believes
Russia is not democratic is decreasing, with 54% in 2000 but only 47% in 2010. While on the
other hand, the percentage of the populace that believes Russia is democratic is increasing, going
from 26% to 34%. Coinciding with the trend established by the data in Table 4, Table 5 analyzes
whether or not the Russian people believe that Russia needs democracy. The trend established
between 2005 and 2011 shows that a majority of the Russian population, between 55% and 67%,
have expressed that the country is indeed democratic.
This belief that there is a need for democracy in Russia leads to a need to determine what
kind of democracy the population wants for Russia. As shown in Table 6, between 1999 and

2000 41% of respondents designate that they believed a reformed Soviet system would be the
best course for the Russian government. In Table 7 it is shown that the general trend between
2008 and 2012 is that the populace believes the best course for Russia is to become a state with a
unique system. This general trend towards a deviation from Western-style democracy shows that
the Russian populace feels that the style of democracy which would best suit the country is a
style that is a mix of the traditional Western-style and the Soviet Union. This is further supported
by the data presented in Table 8 which shows the populace believes the country needs a special
kind, which suits national traditions and the specific Russian character (Russian Public Opinion:
2010-2011, 2012).
Although a majority of the population shows that they would prefer a reformed Soviet
government, further examination of the data presented in Table 9 shows trends between age
groups that suggest variations from this consensus. In those surveyed who were 69 years of age,
the preference was for an unreformed Soviet system, with 45% voting thusly. This trend can be
explained through the fact that a majority of this generation grew up during the Cold War and
were educated to believe that democracy was the root of evil and that communism was the best
path. Therefore, the older generation would have extreme bias towards democracy and would
prefer that Russia develop a government system that does not include democracy, specifically the
Soviet system. When looking at data presented about the preferences of the middle generations,
meaning those between the ages of 30 and 69, many preferred the reformed Soviet system. Like
the older generations, the middle generations did too grow up in the Soviet Union but they grew
up during the latter years under Khrushchev or Gorbachev. Especially with Gorbachev, towards
the end of the Soviet Union, some democratic principles were being presented to the population.
Lastly, analysis of data about the younger generation, those between 18 and 29 of age, shows that

they too preferred the reformed Soviet system. However, the data provided for the younger
generation also shows that their preferences are more equally spread out. Although 36%
preferred the reformed Soviet government, 23% preferred the current political system and 15%
preferred Western democracy. This trend can be explained through the fact that the younger
generation grew up either during the latter years of the Gorbachev administration, when various
democratic reforms were introduced to the Soviet Union, or after the fall of the Soviet Union,
when the Russian Federation was born and new leaders began to work to make the country
democratic.
The overall general attitude of the Russian population is that they do indeed recognize
democracy as a need for the Russian Federation. However, they believe that the best way to
make the country democratic is to create a special form of government, similar to a Western-style
democracy but which takes into consideration the unique Russian culture and history. The best
form of government they believe would suit this ideal is a reformed version of the Soviet Union.
Political Institutions and Structure. The history of Russia has by far had the greatest impact on
the modern government structure. The creation of the 1993 Constitution has provided the
foundation for the government in a country which has never experienced democratic rule. As
well, the current government is also key in determining the ability of democracy to be achieved
in Russia. Actions taken by the government either further the implementation of democracy or
hinder it.
As mentioned in Tangiev (2007), the Council on Foreign Relations states in their report,
Russias Wrong Direction:
Despite rapid economic growth and social transformation, Russian political institutions
are becoming neither more modern nor more effective, but corrupt and brittleToday,

Russia seems stable, but its stability has a weak institutional base. The future of its
political system is less predictable and the countrys problems are less manageable
then they should be.
This serves to highlight the various factors that have impeded the democratization process within
the government. Among all reasons, the following will be discussed: historical influences, the
consolidation of power into the hands of the executive branch, managed elections, and
corruption.
It must first be established how the political system has come to have so much power
over the population of Russia. In a survey conducted in 2007, shown by the data in Table 10,
94% of respondents answered that they had little to no influence on events that happen in the
country as a whole. Respondents also designated that they had little to no influence in their city,
district, or work. In data collected between 2008 and 2011, as shown in Table 11, a majority of
people responded that they definitely did not have any influence on the political processes in
Russia.
Throughout history, Russia has continuously been ruled by autocratic leaders. Thusly, it
can be established that the only type of government the Russian populace has ever experienced is
an autocratic government, meaning that the general populace has never had strong influence on a
national level. This poses a significant problem for the democratization process within Russia. As
democracy is rule by the people and therefore requires active participation by the populace, the
inability for the Russian population to become involved in politics greatly impedes the success of
democracy as it provide the government leadership to accumulate more power in order to rectify
the inability of the population.

One of the characteristics of the modern Russian government is a very strong executive
branch. Although, the executive branch indeed was given more power through the 1993
Constitution, the executive branch has been continuously consolidating power. One of the
biggest powers granted to the president can have extremely detrimental effects on the
democratization process. Since the Russian president has the power to dissolve the lower house
[the Duma] and call new elections (Mitchell, n.d.) in reference to the election of Prime
Ministers. The president can therefore manipulate the election process in order to get the desired
result.
Similarly to the ability of the president being able to manipulate Prime Minister
appointments, many elections in the country are not entirely free. True the elections include
candidates from multiple political parties, however candidates seeking elected office have never
enjoyed a level playing [field] when participating in Russian elections (McFaul, 2004). The
government uses its resources in a way that Hale (n.d.) describes as managed democracy: the
manipulation of state-controlled media, vast resources, and the law in order to produce electoral
outcomes favorable to incumbent authorities. The Russian state owned or indirectly controlled
all three major television networks in the country (Hale, n.d.) which means that the media will
show news that puts the candidates of the current political party in charge of the country in a
better light than the candidates of other political parties. The government has also created
campaign laws that restricted the abilities of opposition parties to gain favor within the
government (Hale, n.d.). The management and rigging of elections does not provide a proper
foundation for democracy in Russia as the government is manipulating the population into voting
the way the government desires.

Although corruption occurs in all countries, the presence it has in Russia is especially
harmful due to the transitional state of democracy the country is in. In a survey conducted by the
Levada Center, as shown in Table 12, most citizens designate corruption of the ruling elite as
the biggest obstacle to democratic success in Russia. Russian General Persecutor Uri Chiaka
states, Unfortunately, we cannot say that corruption is attributed to only certain sectors of the
government. Corruption has penetrates into all levels of authority and has become systematic. It
is demonstrating itself in all spheres of public administration where any financial or material
assets are being distributed. (Tangiev, 2007), as well he [Medvedev] does not see corruption
as simply an illegal activity, but as a form of political participation (Ryabov, 2008). The
recognition of the depth to which corruption has integrated into the political process in Russia
highlights the extent to which the government remains undemocratic. The corruption within the
government prevents the elected officials from carrying out the will of the people because the
corruption leads to a discord between the will of the people and those in power.
Conclusion
Government is unique to each nation on Earth. Every country takes the basic principles of
governance and adapts them to fit the traditions of their country. Great Britain, for example, has
developed a constitutional monarchy due to the inclusion of democracy with their monarchial
traditions.
Russia has developed a unique system of governance due to the influences of its past. The
current government lies somewhere between the democracy of the West and the dictatorial
socialism of the former Soviet Union. The Russians particularly struggle with the process of
implementing democracy due to the fact that they themselves have never experienced a
democracy but also due to the fact that there is no other example of such a transition that Russia

is making ever in history. As well, even though the Russian populace shows that it would favor
the country to have a version of democracy, the history of a class of elite Russians in relation to
government power prevents Russias leaders from placing the power in the hands of the people.
The understanding of the modern Russian political system and the influences that have
led to it is not only crucial to the future of Russia itself, but also to the future of the world as a
whole. As the world becomes increasingly more connected and situations arise in which
international cooperation is necessary, the understanding of a government such as Russias is
crucial in order to work effectively with them. Any lack of understanding can lead to a
misinterpretation or miscommunication of action which can serve to further a conflict or create a
new one. An understanding of Russias government is critical to modern politics as Russia is one
of the world's leading powers and it has great influence over critical regions of the world. The
ability of Western nations to understand the Russian government can also aid in the
democratization process as they can help to coach Russia down the proper path.
References
Aron, L. (2015, December 1). Novorossiya! Putin and his dangerous 'new Russia' Retrieved
September 30, 2015.
Colton, T., & McFaul, M. (2001, June 1). Are Russians Undemocratic? Retrieved October 25,
2015.
Contending With Putin's Russia: A Call for American Leadership. (n.d.). Retrieved October 11,
2015.
Fedorov, Y. (2000, May 1). Democratization and Globalization: The Case of Russia.
Retrieved November 4, 2015.
Frieden, J., Lake, D., & Schultz, K. (2013). What Shaped Our World. In World Politics (2nd ed.,

pp. 22-33). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Frieden, J., Lake, D., & Schultz, K. (2013). Domestic Policies and War. In World Politics (2nd
ed., pp. 154-166). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Hale, H. (n.d.). Russia's Elections and "Managed Democracy" Retrieved November 4, 2015.
Hatipoglu, E. (1998). The Democratisation Process in Russia. Perceptions: Journal of
International Affairs, III(2). Retrieved October 9, 2015.
Hauss, C. (2006). Chapter 9: Russia. In Comparative Politics: Domestic Responses to Global
Challenges (Fifth ed., pp. 227 - 263). Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Huskey, E. (1995). Democracy and Institutional Design in Russia. Retrieved October 20, 2015.
Kara-Murza, V. (2014, August 29). Is Russia Suited for Democracy? Retrieved October 4, 2015.
Khrushchev, S. (2015, November 12). Interview with Dr. Sergei Khrushchev [Telephone
interview].
Khrushcheva, N. (2010). No heads are better than two: Russia's double-headed eagle is not
just a national emblem. It's a symbol of the national schizophrenia. Retrieved
September 30, 2015.
Mau, V. (2004). The Logic of Russian Transition: Trends and results of the first post-Communist
decade. Retrieved October 3, 2015.
McFaul, M. (2004). Russia's Transition to Democracy and US-Russia Relations: Unfinished
Business. Retrieved October 16, 2015.
Myers, S. (2004, September 15). Opponents Call Putin's Overhaul Plan a Step Back. Retrieved
November 4, 2015.
Mitchell, N. (n.d.). Illiberal Democracy and Vladimir Putin's Russia. Retrieved November 4,
2015.

Persson, G. (2013, August 1). Russian History - A Matter of National Security. Retrieved
October 1, 2015.
Russian Public Opinion: 2010-2011. (2012). Retrieved November 16, 2015.
Ryabov, A. (2008, November 21). Obstacles to Democratic Transition in Contemporary
Russia. Retrieved October 9, 2015.
Sakwa, R. (2005). Perestroika and the Challenge of Democracy in Russia. Retrieved October 20,
2015.
Stoner, K., & McFaul, M. (2009, March 1). Domestic and International Influences on the
Collapse of the Soviet Union (1991) and Russia's Initial Transition to Democracy (1993).
Retrieved October 19, 2015.
Tangiev, M. (2007, November 1). Political Leadership and Transitional Democracy in the
Russian Federation: Challenges and Prospects. Retrieved October 29, 2015.
Voices from Russia: Society, Democracy, Europe. (2007, February 1). Retrieved October 10,
2015.
Yuzhbabenko, L. (2015, November 5). Interview with Lyudmyla Yuzhbabenko [Personal
interview].

Tables
Table 1.
Attitudes Toward Possible Trade-offs Between Democracy and Order, 1999-2000
STATEMENT
PERCENTAGE
Fully
Agree Indifferen Disagre Completel Dont
Agree
t
e
y Disagree Know
Democracies are not any
4
28
19
31
good maintaining order
Democracies are
6
28
12
36
indecisive and have too
much squabbling
In a democracy, the
3
15
17
44
economic system runs
badly
*Interviews after 1999 parliamentary election (N=1,846) weighted cases
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding
(Colton and McFaul, 2001)

15

13

15

Table 2.
Which of the following statements you would rather agree?
All the power in Russia should be centralized, and Russians do not need the so called
democratic freedoms and elections
Democratic freedoms should always be the foundation of the society; under no
circumstances the power can be centralized
Difficult to answer

33
59
8

October, 2011; N=1600

(Russian Public Opinion: 2010-2011, 2012)
Table 3.
Do you believe that Western democracy and Western culture
2000 APRIL 2006 DECEMBER
Are necessary, will have a recovery effect for Russia
2
3
Can be benefited from a lot
55
45
Are not suitable for us
25
30
Are destructive, pernicious for Russia
10
12
No opinion
8
10
(Voices from Russia: Society, Democracy, Europe, 2007)

Table 4.
Is the current Russia a democratic society?
2000
October
Yes
26
No
54
Difficult to answer
20
(Russian Public Opinion: 2010-2011, 2012)

2010
October
34
47
19

Table 5.
Where is the Russian political life going now?

Development of democracy
Re-establishment of the former
Soviet order

199
2
9
17

1993
8
18

199
4
13
12

199
5
11
13

199
6
14
15

199
7
14
12

199
8
9
1

199
9
10
8

Development of authoritarian
regime and dictatorship
Escalating chaos and anarchy

51

53

54

51

51

54

58

62

Difficult to answer

17

16

16

12

14

17

15

14

200
5
32
7

2006
33
6

200
7
36
9

200
8
54
8

200
9
36
9

201
0
39
10

201
1
36
7

201
2
35
10

12

14

13

16

14

12

18

19

30

22

14

21

16

18

19

18

24

28

13

20

22

21

17

Development of democracy
Reestablishment of the former
Soviet order
Development of authoritarian
regime and dictatorship
Escalating chaos and anarchy
Difficult to answer
N=1600

(Russian Public Opinion: 2010-2011, 2012)

Table 6.
Preferred Political System for Russia, 1999-2000
PREFERENCE
PERCENTAGE
The Soviet system we had in our country before perestroika
25
The Soviet system, but in a different, more democratic form
41
The political system that exists today
12
Democracy of the Western type
9
Other response or Dont know
2
*Interviews after 1999 parliamentary election (N=1,846) weighted cases
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding
(Colton and McFaul, 2001)
Table 7.
What type of state would you like Russia to be in the future?

Socialist state like the USSR

A state like Western states with a democratic
government system and market economy
A state with a special system and a unique
course of development
Difficult to answer
Number of respondents
(Russian Public Opinion: 2010-2011, 2012)

1999
15
35

2008
17
32

2011
23
30

2012
21
31

45

39

36

41

6
2600

11
1600

12
1600

7
1600

Table 8.
What kind of democracy does Russia need?
200 200 200 200 200 200
5
6
7
8
9
9
VI
XII
XII
VI
VI
XII
Like in developed countries
24
18
22
20
20
23
of Europe and America
Like in the former Soviet
16
13
10
13
18
14
Union
A special kind, which suits
45
48
47
45
39
43
national traditions and the
specific Russian character
Russia does not need
6
10
7
8
10
7
democracy
Difficult to answer
9
11
14
15
14
13
N=1600
(Russian Public Opinion: 2010-2011, 2012)

201
0
VI
23

201 2011
1
VII
X
19
23

16

14

17

45

49

44

10

11

10

Table 9.
Preference for Political System by Age Group, 1999-2000
PREFERRED POLITICAL
AGE GROUP
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
69+
SYSTEM
Unreformed Soviet system
10
20
21
29
36
45
Reformed Soviet system
36
40
46
46
41
29
Current political system
23
17
10
8
9
8
Western democracy
15
13
8
8
5
4
Other response or Dont know
15
11
14
10
9
14
*Interviews after 1999 parliamentary election (N=1,846) weighted cases
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding
(Colton and McFaul, 2001)

Table 10.
What influences can you have on what occurs in...?
Decisive/Considerabl Little/very little/no influence No opinion
e
The country as a whole
2
94
4
Your city, region
3
93
4
Your district, street
9
88
4
Your work
16
74
10
Your family
81
17
2
(Voices from Russia: Society, Democracy, Europe, 2007)
Table 11.
Do you think you can influence political processes in Russia?
2008
2010
VI
VI
Definitely yes
1
3
Yes, rather than no
7
7
No, rather than yes
36
30
Definitely no
51
54
Difficult to answer
5
6
N=1600
(Russian Public Opinion: 2010-2011, 2012)

2011
X
3
11
34
48
4

Table 12.
What is the main obstacle to democratic and market reforms in Russia?
200
200 2007 2010
0
4
III
III
III
III
Corrupt of ruling elite
47
42
42
49
Absence of sound reform program
45
30
39
28
Lack of competent specialists in the Russian government
24
24
23
25
The market economy is incompatible with the Russian
22
21
22
17
lifestyle
People are not used to democracy and market economy,
18
17
14
18
the population lack the business initiative and are

201
1
III
47
28
20
21
16

unwilling to work
Wrong reform strategy
Opposition and sabotage of bureaucrats
Extremely fast pace of reforms and drastic changes in
peoples lives
Slow pace and inconsistency of reforms
Difficult to answer
N=1600
(Russian Public Opinion: 2010-2011, 2012)

25
10
17

16
12
12

18
16
15

14
16
13

15
13
13

12
9

13
12

13
11

13
12

11
11

Appendix A
Interview with Dr. Sergei Khrushchev
Dr. Sergei Khrushchev is the son of former Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev. Dr.
Khrushchev currently resides in Rhode Island in the United States and is a registered citizen of
the United States. He teaches politics at Brown University and holds a doctorate in engineering.

The interview was conducted on November 12, 2015 over the phone and was unable to
be recorded for transcribing. Responses reflect the key points of Interviewees responses.
1. What do you believe is the best method to evaluate a countrys democratic achievement?
o Respect of the law and the Constitution
o Law is created by the people in democracy
o Law is created by ruler in authoritarian state
o Freedoms can be mimicked
2. Do you believe that Russia is rightfully considered a democracy?
o Going towards democracy
o Must change mentality of the people
o More democratic now than then
o Putin inherited Yeltsin constitution which grants more power to the President
o Often parallels to French democratization
3. Do you think that the current sanctions imposed upon Russia as a result of the annexation
of Crimea hinder Russias advance towards democracy?
o No
o US seen as enemy
o Russians have to work to protect their government
4. What are your feelings about Vladimir Putin?
o Effective ruler up until 2008
o Restored rule of law
o Understands need of new economy but doesnt know how to reform it

o Putin may lose popularity

5. Do you believe that Putins desire to centralize power within the Kremlin will undermine
the democratic principles already set in place?
o Putin isnt trying to centralize the power
o He is using power that was given to him
6. What impact do you think the current political culture in Russia will have on the future
voting trends of the younger generations?
o Each generation lives in their own environments
o Newer generation views West with negativity
o America viewed as enemy
7. As most citizens of the Russian Federation grew up under the Soviet Union and even
participated in communist organizations, how great of an impact do you believe this has
on the current government and political trends?
o Imperial mentality hasnt changed
o The goodwill of the ruler was the law
o Soviet Union mentality has not had big impact
8. How has the history of corruption among the political elite impacted how Russians view
the government?
o Yeltsin created oligarchy and corruption
o Corruption destroys many countries
1. Relation to corruption in US government
o Corruption is universal

ii.

How has the foundation of a capitalist economy increased the chance of democracy
succeeding in Russia?
o It decreases it, makes life worse
o Good intention is not enough
o Examples of US intervention in Iraq and Syria
o Premature implementation of democracy
o Example of how China is more democratic than it was now
o Structural changes are necessary

iii.

Many have speculated that the current Russian government may return to the old Soviet
government. Do you think this is possible, especially since many citizens now highly
value the freedoms they have gained after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
o Americans have primitive understanding of Soviet system
o It wasnt that bad in the Soviet Union
o Russia is moving forward not back
o America is pushing Russia back
o Must have respect for other countries

iv.

What do you believe the future of Russia is if the current system of government
continues?
o Difficult to say
o Putin can stay in power 8 more years
o Putin has hard time reforming economy- his popularity will decline unless he does
o Revolution could occur

v.

Given Russias history and political trends, do you believe that Russia is truly meant for
democracy?
o Interviewer has a different mentality
o People look at what system will benefit them best and move towards that
o Russia will turn to democracy when its ready

vi.

What do you believe is the best course of action Russia should take to become a true
democracy?
o Russia is transforming themselves
o Sanctions harm the transition

Appendix B
Interview with Lyudmyla Yuzhbabenko

Mrs. Lyudmyla Yuzhbabenko is the current Russian Language teacher at the Global
Studies and World Languages Academy at Tallwood High School. She was born in Odessa,
Ukraine and has since immigrated to the United States.
The interview was conducted on November 5, 2015 in person and was able to be
recorded for transcribing.
Interviewer: What do you believe is the best method to evaluate a countrys democratic
achievement?
Mrs. Yuzhbabenko: So speaking of democratic achievement I believe its the freedom the
country has. And we are talking about not just the freedom of speech or the freedom of
oppositions, but we are talking about the freedom that every person has, like personal freedom.
Freedom of choice. Because I believe the task of each government to give their people the big
freedom of choice. And speaking of the last election, I wouldnt say the country had lots of
choices. The majority of the population voted for Vladimir Putin and I believe because the
structure of the government is very demanding. And speaking of the peoples choice, they
couldnt actually go with anything else but the structure they had at that moment. You know what
I mean? So its more about like choices that we give to actually the government gives to its
people. Thats what I think. And speaking of Russia, I would say it needs more years to actually
give that freedom or democracy to the country.
Interviewer: Do you believe that Russia is rightfully considered a democracy?
Mrs. Yuzhbabenko: No, I dont think so. I dont think so. I would say it is on its way. So they try
and they try their best to build a democratic society. But I wouldnt say its there now.
Interviewer: Freedom House states that Russia is not free on a scale of not free to free, do
you agree with this statement?

Mrs. Yuzhbabenko: I would say its partly free. So of course people got more freedoms than in
the Soviet Union. And some people consider this to be a lot because when they compare their life
in the Soviet Union and they compare their life what they have now, and speaking of freedom
what they have now, they believe its a democratic society. But if we compare todays Russia to
democratic, truly democratic societies, that means its not there its partly free.
Interviewer: Do you think that the current sanctions imposed upon Russia as a result of the
annexation of Crimea hinder Russias advance towards democracy?
Mrs. Yuzhbabenko: I think so but I have mixed feelings about the Crimea because they did have
a referendum and the people did vote. So, speaking of that part of the country, it used to be
Ukrainian, but now its Russian. There are many Russians there and they wanted to join Russia.
And being from Ukraine, I know we still have more cities in the country that want to join Russia.
And I know the results, and it was about 80 percent of people who voted to join Russia. And I
believe it was a very democratic movement and thats how it happened. But it doesnt look like
the West can see it because I have my friends, I have my relatives, in the country and I knew
about this. I know about this. They really wanted to join the country. They wanted to join Russia.
They didnt want to stay in Ukraine. Even Im from the south of the country Im from Ukraine,
right and Im from Odessa, and I know that there is so many people who would love to join
Russia because we consider Russian language to be our native language and the new government
doesnt let us use the language now. And now people struggle with life. Speaking of the budget
of the country, its really bad. So that means the new government didnt bring the changes people
hoped to see in Ukraine. So that is why I wouldnt say that it was done because Putin wanted it.
It was done because people who lived in Crimea wanted to join Russia. Because if they wouldnt
if they dont want it or they wouldnt like it, he wouldnt do it ever. He would never be able to

actually join Crimea to the Russian Federation. So, and thats why I consider this to be more
democratic, like speaking of this decision and speaking of the results. So, thats my point of
view. Thats what I think. This is my opinion.
Interviewer: What are your feelings about Vladimir Putin?
Mrs. Yuzhbabenko: I think hes a very strong leader. Definitely, he does something for the
country that he should do because if we go back, lets say, a few years or even more ago, the
country didnt live the way it lives now. And I speak with my friends in Russia, they have more
opportunities. He does right things for the country. So, probably it doesnt look this way abroad
when he actually tries to do something for the country, it is seen like he does something wrong.
But, people who live in the country consider that to be right. So, its a huge country and some
people still believe they need a strong leader to put the country together. And without that
leadership skill, he would never be able to do it but now people actually see many changes in
Russia and I see that people actually sound proud when they speak about their country. Even ten
years ago, it wasnt the same. And I consider him to be a strong leader once again; but at the
same time, he does his mistakes. Thats my opinion.
Interviewer: In a working paper from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, written
in 2000 by Yuri Fedorov, mentions that Russians see themselves as objects of manipulation by
the countrys rulers. Do you think this statement still is a true generalization of the Russian
populace?
Mrs. Yuzhbabenko: Ive never heard such opinion. Probably people who live in the country, they
do not think so that the government actually manipulates them. Because Ive never heard this
opinion from the people. They support the government. And now, even according to the
statistics, he is the most popular leader in the country than ever before. Like, we never had so

much support from the people for any of the leaders in the Soviet Union or ever after. And
now, people want him to stay, thats what I hear, and they want him to continue leading the
country.
Interviewer: Do you believe that Putins desire to centralize power within the Kremlin will
undermine the democratic principles already set in place?
Mrs. Yuzhbabenko: I would say yes because some methods he uses is a little bit too strong. And
speaking of the opposition, I wouldnt say he lets the opposition speak up loudly. That means
actually its limited. He gives a little bit of freedom just to look good probably. But at the same
time I believe that its not enough. So I still believe that its very demanding, Im talking about
the government; and I still believe its like one party government, even though we have the
Communist Party and we have some democratic parties. But its a very strong hand that he has,
Im talking about Putin.
Interviewer: What impact do you think the current political culture in Russia will have on the
future voting trends of the younger generations?
Mrs. Yuzhbabenko: So first of all, I think that the most freedom people got in Russia now is a
freedom to travel and work with different countries. But of course it does influence them,
especially new generations, because if you speak about the Soviet Union, probably everybody
remembers the term Iron Curtain. .1 So that means actually people couldnt even leave the
country without special permission. So that means they couldnt learn from their neighbors or
countries, different countries. They couldnt compare what they have, like what the Soviet Union
had and what other countries had. And we are talking about lifestyle, we are talking about
economy, we are talking about many, many different things, and democracy as well. So now
people are open to new ideas. They work with different countries and they travel a lot. Russians

love to travel. And of course when they come back to their country, they actually bring ideas and
they can see the difference. And I believe, this is like my strong opinion, that new generations
will choose more democratic ways to actually build the country and rule the country. And I
believe that this generation is still very influenced by the Soviet Union and communist school.
And I believe when the new generation will change the current one, we might see more changes
in the country.
Interviewer: As most citizens of the Russian Federation grew up under the Soviet Union and
even participated in communist organizations, how great of an impact do you believe this has
had on the current government and political trends?
Mrs. Yuzhbabenko: Oh, yeah. Its a direct impact. I believe its a strong influence. Even though
you try to actually build something new, but your mind still works like in the way, when you
grew up in the Soviet Union. Speaking of the Soviet Union, I can tell that many people still feel
good about the country and they believe that they had a good life there because economically
they were pretty secure. And sometimes they try to bring some rules back because they believe it
did work in the Soviet Union even though people didnt have enough freedom. But
economically, they were more secure and thats what they miss now. They want to live their life
without struggling. And in the Soviet Union, there was only a big middle class and we didnt
have rich people or poor people. And many people believe thats how it should be in every
society. Because now we have three classes, like poor people, rich, very rich people, and the
middle class is very small. So its not just about the economy or lifestyle. Its about politics as
well. So speaking of the rules, some of them believe they worked. They worked for the Soviet
Union and thats how they try to apply them to now. Like, the new country and new life. And I
believe if you got educated in that country, Im talking about the Soviet Union, you have strong

beliefs in something. I think its kind of hard to get rid of it. I still dont understand, like in the
Soviet Union most of the people actually showed that they didnt believe in God because it was
not acceptable. And now they became very strong, like people who go to church. And I still dont
understand this. So, how can you change this so much? You know what I mean? Were talking
about 2. And in the Soviet Union, if you were a communist, you couldnt go to church.
But I can see the same people who were like strong communists and now they go to church
almost every Sunday. I dont know about that. This is just an example of how people change
something just to please the society. But I dont know about their strong opinions or what they
believe in.
Interviewer: In 2003, Neil J. Mitchell states in his article Illiberal Democracy and Vladimir
Putins Russia that an analysis found that one-third of the top government officials are former
KGB members. To what extent do you believe that this has impacted the way the government
operates?
Mrs. Yuzhbabenko: So, the way they treat people. The way they actually rule the country. And
speaking of the government, I still believe that the government is very corrupted because they
always believe that the government has its special place in the society. And speaking of KGB,
everything was allowed to them. They could use their position in their private life. For example,
if you want to live in the center of Moscow, it was not a problem for them. But for the rest, it
didnt look like they cared much for how people lived in the country. But speaking of the
government, even in the Soviet Union, we all know that they had a really good life. But this is
something that does affect the country and the way they treat people and the way they rule the
country.

Interviewer: How has the history of corruption among the political elite impacted how Russians
view the government?
Mrs. Yuzhbabenko: So I mentioned this and this is a big problem for Russia today. And it was a
big problem for the Soviet Union. And Ukraine as well. Speaking of corruption, people actually
dont have freedoms to the point that the government people and their families have. So and
everybody knew about this. Also, money could decide and can decide everything in Russia now.
And it was like this before. So if you got in trouble, you just pay a certain amount of money and
you get out of trouble. Speaking of publicity, Ive never heard anything about people from the
government or their children. If they did something wrong, it doesnt become public. It stayed in
the house. Like, my shock when I came to America was when they were talking about one of the
daughters of the President who got drunk and drove her car. And it became so public the next
day. So thats one example of democracy but it doesnt happen in Russia. As soon as you know
the right people, you have your connections and you can solve any problems. That means it is
still like this. The corruption is a huge problem in the country.
Interviewer: How has the foundation of a capitalist economy increased the chance of democracy
succeeding in Russia?
Mrs. Yuzhbabenko: So speaking of free market, people actually got more opportunities to
develop their business and build their own business because in the Soviet Union, nobody had that
chance to have any kind of private business. Everybody worked for the government only. And
when people got this chance to actually build their own life or business, it was a huge moment; it
was a huge move for the country. And people believe that it was - they opened that door. And
they consider this change to be a very democratic change because speaking of private business, it
is still kind of under control. Speaking of government, it is under control. And they control

business in Russia. And everybody knows this but comparing to the Soviet Union when people
had no chance or opportunity to run their own business - any kind, small or big - they consider
this a big change.
Interviewer: Many have speculated that the current Russian government may return to the old
Soviet government. Do you think this is possible, especially since many citizens now highly
value the freedoms they have gained since the collapse of the Soviet Union?
Mrs. Yuzhbabenko: Its impossible. I think its impossible. Its impossible because - exactly,
actually your question has the answer. So because now people know more about different
countries and they know more about how it is to live in a democratic society. And so thats how
nobody can bring them back to the Soviet Union. So I think its impossible because even though
some people from older generations, they miss the Soviet Union. And they believe that it was so
much easier for them to live there because their children were secure, their life was secure. But at
the same time we had so many people suffer there because they couldnt express their opinion.
They couldnt speak against the government. They could not criticize anything in the country
because as soon as you did it, you got in trouble. But now people can express themselves. And
when I watch TV even, I see more and more different opinions about the government, about the
country, about the ways the country should take. And its promising. That means people are
actually taking the right ways, and especially the new generation. So new people will never go
back to the Soviet Union or any kind of government like it was before.
Interviewer: What do you believe the future of Russia is if the current system of government
continues?
Mrs. Yuzhbabenko: I think its a big question by the way. Its kind of hard to predict. I believe
Putin is not going to stay forever. And this is obvious of course. Economically, he did a lot for

the country and people actually appreciate the opportunities he gave to the country. And we
consider him to be able to do it because he wants the people to be proud of him and the country.
But at the same time, I believe that new generations will come and new leaders will be there in
Russia. And thats something that is hard to predict. But I hope with the change of the generation,
we are going to see more changes in the country.
Interviewer: Given Russias history and political trends, do you believe that Russia is truly
meant for democracy?
Mrs. Yuzhbabenko: Not truly, you know. We have some elements of democracy now. And my
hope is that its going to have more and more. Its actually going to become a democratic country
one day. But those elements are pretty promising. Thats how I see it. I wouldnt say people
actually now benefit from a democratic society. Not yet. But some elements are definitely there
and people can see them. And of course the hope is to develop more and more. And then they
will actually give a chance to people to leave the country. And maybe one day we will see Russia
as a truly democratic society. Thats the hope. But speaking of history, its hard to predict. So you
never know. Because I do believe it depends on the leader of the country. And even though we
say one person doesnt make changes or one person doesnt make decisions, its always a
teamwork - speaking of the government. But what I see in Russia, I see that he actually does
make his own decisions. And thats something that is scary because it shouldnt be this way.
Because I believe that one person cannot be in charge of the whole country. But with Putin I see
it more and more. The way he speaks most of the time, he speaks from himself. So he does say
that he actually does it, everything for the country and for the people. But when I listen to him, I
can see his opinion about many things going on. And thats the concern.

Interviewer: What do you believe is the best course of action Russia should take to become a
true democracy?
Mrs. Yuzhbabenko: Speaking of the development of those democratic elements, I think thats
what Russia has to do just to keep going. Also speaking of the history, they did believe in one
leader before. And I see it now. They do believe that one strong hand has to lead the country
because it was the same in the Soviet Union and they lived like that for years. We are talking
about a few generations that actually had that same structure of the government - like one strong
leader and that was the only choice. But now I see it again and they believe in Putin like hes the
one. But hes not the one. I really want the people to see that the government has to work as a
team not just like one person. We can see it in America and we can see it in other countries. And
I believe that experience will be taken from different countries, successful countries, and applied
to Russia. Thats the hope. But its hard to predict because we never know who will be next. If
Russia believes in one strong leader that means it depends on that person.
______________________________________________________________________________
Translation Notes
1: = yes
2: = atheists