The Effects of Putins Hegemony on Lives of Russian Citizens - Research Paper Example

? ‘The effects of Putin's hegemony on lives of Russian citizens’ The word hegemony refers to leadership or predominantinfluence practiced by one nation over others, like in a confederation. Due to the association between hegemony and leadership, there is a need to define leadership meaning. Leadership describes the function of a leader in the capacity of leader or the ability to lead his/her country. Four primary norms of hegemony are being shown (in Figure .1) in Radial Hegemony diagram. They have been classified from slightest hierarchic to the highest hierarchic such as hegemonic independence, loose hegemony, loose hegemony with tighter norms and tight hegemony. Here, a gist and common knowledge will be put forth regarding each type of hegemony; moreover, each kind of hegemony can be implemented in the scenario of relations structured on power logic, multilateral relations and bilateral relations. In the scenario of hegemonic independence, Russia is not energetic as a prevailing regional leader. However, the country has the potential to perform such a role. Pronouncements of sovereignty and political assertions are the characteristics of loose hegemony and in a hierarchic system while Russia on top is not possible. However, there have been a few signs that a comparatively tight hierarchic core is enhancing in the parameters of post-Soviet loose hegemony. Russia is definitely the central leader within the parameters of tight hegemony, here, the associations of countries may influence other countries; moreover, internal decisions are also an influential factor. Several countries that are a segment of tight hegemony with Russia at extent displayed or exhibited their dynamic opposition towards Russian hegemony. Therefore, tight hegemony is associated to a few countries (Descalzi, pp. 193-194) Vladimir Putin has been the most controversial leader of Russia. There are several contradictory perceptions regarding his governing style, thought and practice. Furthermore, he has been one of the most popular leaders in Russian history despite potentially challenging obstacles. Several events and characteristics during his reign exhibit as possible barriers against his popularity. It has been counseled by the foreign critics that subjugation of free speech, civil society organizations, political pluralism and press freedom have taken back Russia from democratic transition. Similarly, cooling in relations with the West, unpopular social reforms, massively fatal national tragedies in Moscow and Beslan, and the never ending conflict in Chechnya are in the perspective of several western or outside observers and put an important stain on the image of Putin. However, none of these influenced his popularity rating negatively during his presidency period. His rating remains stable between 70 and 80% throughout his tenure, and in most part of his career he continues to stays superior, despite his defeat in the election and his rivals occupied his place in the office. There were many reasons for Putin’s popularity. Some accuse Putin to utilize state control over media for obtaining public support by saving and fortifying his public image on television. Television is the most popular media in Russia. Almost 85% Russians watch television for informative purpose. In Russia it was not a new thing to manipulate the media to portray a positive image of the president on television. At that time winning over the Russian population would be very difficult without generating a visible proof to underpin the genuineness of the image. (Mommsen and NuBberger,. pp. 52-53)Hegemony will be viewed in the current paper within the parameters of leadership and background of democratic and cultural impact; moreover, the character of a leader and its impact over its subjects or citizens will be observed briefly; furthermore, the overall discussion in this paper will examine Vladimir Putin the Russian president and his tenure’s impact on the lives of Russian people. The unexpected collapse of communist regimes in East Europe aggravated a scholarly reaction, where social scientific generalists ridiculed area studies specialists for not predetermine to foreseen 1989. Very soon neo-liberal economists overflowed with theoretical concepts and research designs. Furthermore, American behaviorists, and transitologists, and none of them prominently in its examination featured the state (Bunce, 111-127; Goldman, 515-521; Cohen, 37-55; Hanson and Ruble, pp. 49-57). However, there was no eternal life for this understated state. During the time when dissertations were being published, social science theory was overtaken by the real life events again. Russian democracy was derailed, by the end of 1990s, and capitalism was corrupted, and post-communist state was the main culprit. A scholarly consensus has held that the post-communist state is responsible for wayward transition of Russia after the fiscal crisis of the late 1990s (Holmes, p. 25). Nonetheless, over the nature of the offense disagreement promptly emerges but the state was too avaricious, too fragile, and too acquiescent. During the transition, truly, the Russian state was fragile, submissive, and greedy. However, it is undeniable that public support for Putin is long-lasting than his television images. Some of his support’s roots have their origins in the specific political, social and economic background of Russia in 1990s. Actually, Russians tried to find a hero in Putin after the bitter legacy of economic turmoil and the chaotic mood of democratic transition and irresponsibility of government left behind by presidency of Yeltsin. Konstantin Bogdanov, the commentator of RIA described “Vladimir Putin's phenomenon is different: his actions coincide with Russia's dynamics and public moods” (Bogdanov). According to some opponents the disordered dynamic of the democratic transition manifested in a Russian longing for change and for these people even authoritarian leadership, heavy-handed and illiberal attitudes were acceptable. Russians have consistency favored democracy over other governing forms and it has been confirmed through opinions polls. According to Russians democracy has been ineffective specifically the Yeltsin’s democracy which did not have mandatory attributions of democracy. Industry and public funds in his government mishandled. Because of his irresponsible policies ordinary Russians had to suffer the economic inflation. Truly, the form of democracy, which has been implemented by Yeltsin, was not able to facilitate its people to flourish in the system of free market. Just because of his faulty democracy Russians were unable to take advantages from the democracy (Machalek). In the study of Carnaghan (P. 112) many participants complained that the government did not do sufficient to make sure justice in the system. Exclusively, they wanted wages and pensions paid on time, decent pay for specialized workers, like doctors, teachers and, scientists who contributed to society with focused work, the possibility to get better one’s circumstances with hard work, opportunities to find employment, and economic consideration for the tremendously poor. Fundamentally, they wanted the economy to stick on more closely to the typical of desert. The positive economic times that arrived with Putin’s presidency gave a large portion of the population a obviously understandable reason to suppose that life had turned into fairer for average Russians. Russia experienced reliable growth as well as increase in productivity and real wages every year of his presidency. Household living standards alone rose by close to 50%, when 2003 is compared with 1995.The strengthening of the ruble caused it to increasingly replace the dollars the currency of choice and encouraged the increased purchasing of imported goods. Moreover, the country’s real disposable income doubled between 1999 and 2006 increasing consumer spending and consumer confidence in the system. The people wanted everything which is important for their lives, specifically, they needed lucrative pay for specialized workers such as; teachers, scientists and doctors who enhanced the society with focused work; moreover, they wanted pensions and wages paid on time. Furthermore, they required excellent atmosphere comprising of facilities for access to employment, and financial subsidies for economically deprived people, and they also wished the economy of desert type to attach on more closely. After Putin’s obtaining the office of the president the economy took a radical change, positively; thus, people started to think that their financial status was moving upward(Coleharvey). Moreover, the country was expecting a development not only in productivity but also real wages had a significant improvement every year of Putin’s tenure. The living standard of the people graphically leaped up to 50% in 2003 as contrasted with 1995. Moreover, in the currency market the ruble became more stable and the purchasing of imported goods improved and motivated as ruble became a currency of choice. Between 1999 and 2006 the real disposable income of the country doubled; thence, the spending of consumer and confidence of consumer improved, thematically. Within no time Russians observed bigger money circulating to greater segments of the inhabitants (Stephen, pp. 139-160). In contrast if Putin exhibited an anti-democratic leadership style he would never been able to get such an overwhelming support. Indeed, this comparison highlights an interesting paradox in opinion. Putin achieved the mood and dynamics as foundation; truly, it was not a simple whim for authoritarian leadership style and for order change according to Russian opinion survey it was a miracle. Michael McFaul, Russian political expert, in 2007 in a media conference explained that no Russian liked an autocratic system of government and almost 80% were against it. However, it was there misunderstanding because they were not aware that they were living in autocratic atmosphere (McFaul, pp. 161-172) Michael Putin persuasively highlighted justice in his policies, which most Russians, in turn, considered to be a trait of correctly working democracy that the dysfunctional democracy of the 90s lacked as compare to heavy-handed authoritarianism. Thence, considering the previously mentioned paradox of opinion, It is necessary to determine how Russian endorsement of democracy and its associated excellence of justice helped protected well-liked sustain for Vladimir Putin. The fact that Russians continue to remain firmly committed to democratic principles does not disagree with their overwhelmingly support for Putin because his policies fulfilled Russians’ expectations of democracy to provide a fair surroundings for its citizens, in which success rested on the principle of desert rather than lawlessness and preferential treatment. Putin was not underpinned due to his liberal actions by the Russians; instead he was supported thanks to paid wages and pensions punctually. Moreover, he openly punished those who opposed democratic capitalism through their criminal practices regarding business. Democracy and fairness are synonymic according to Russians; however, the incidents of 1990s disguised Putin as savior of the nation and democratic practices instead of an aficionado of authoritarianism (Anderson, pp. 3-12). Obviously, several of his policies remarkably displayed his enthusiasm and aptitude to address the actual concerns of the population and according to several Russians missing from the democracy of the 90s. Countless in fact cited this require as the source of failure in early democracy of Russia. Considering the dramatic political and social changes that occurred in the democratic transition under Yeltsin, Russia’s dynamic and public moods largely centered on the need for more effective government, social stability, and particularly a reinstatement of global image of Russia. Regardless of the successes his regime contributed to the democratic transition in terms of institution building and pluralism, his presidency was overshadowed by the very real failures experienced by ordinary Russians. From the perspective of most ordinary Russians, There was a series of blundered, which overpowered the administration of Yeltsin. They were corrupt, with criminal mindset; and they were shaking due to unavoidable political crisis one after another. Their attitude put the country at the state of shock, humiliation and poverty. They bestowed the foreigners and sold out their country and in returned they obtained poor living standard, destruction of ruble which led to bankruptcy. (Perry Anderson, 2007) The leadership of Vladimir Putin has been full of disagreements; therefore, a perplexed and unique judgment can be forwarded regarding his presidency. Moreover, these contradictions became an origin of influence for Putin. Due to these contradictions he was able to move in different dimensions of politics; he proved himself credible in each dimension though the correctness of some are still questionable. Putin proclaimed his target as the ‘dictatorship of law’ after enthroned into presidency in 2000. There has been no doubt that this rule was practiced in trying to conquer the lawful disintegration of the country within the scenario of federal system; however, at the time of obtaining government objectives, it seemed that the system was not ruled by the law instead providing surety of rule of law. Obviously, this is not an instance there are several more such as; the development of civil society, the revival of the party system and international integration and proved that all practices were ineffective against the declared principle. There happened several interesting debates regarding leadership of Putin they evaluated Putin’s leadership by doubting contradictions as tensions; thence, agreeable to declaration or whether the contradictions were antagonistic; therefore, they could not solved in the existing system. An evolutionary surpassing of the Putin order would need for the first option; while some sort of radical break would need for the second ( Sakwa, pp 879-897). The rule of Putin did not function in a emptiness; moreover, sometime simple decisions are given on behalf of the background of totalitarianism regarding principles which were not sufficient to cope with the true hurdles which were being fought by the Russian government at the time of Putin’s presidency. The most crucial hurdle has been Chechen insurgency comprising of attacks away from the republic such as Dagestan, even Moscow was not secure because in October 2002 the Dubrovka theatre siege exhibited, and Beslan in September where 364 died in a school. These all events tested democracy, political order and the strongly established Putin government. Moreover, the Russian foreign policy because of this Russia would be recognized in the whole world had some assumptions which apprehended even some of the ruling figures in Moscow. Transitional examples related to doctrine of applications, which have been the foundation of democracy fortifying and strengthening; however, geopolitics and history were being ignored and caused annihilation in Russia. A more genetic theory was obtained through this practice; clearly, this depicted that any transformational argument must be effaced at the commencement of the conditions, questions of civilization pluralism, contested recognition, and complex social realities. In all his time of governing Putin requested to the principles of constancy, reassertion and consolidation of the sanctions of the state. Nonetheless, the ideology of centrism, consensus and request to ‘normal’ politics were overwhelmed through several primary contradictions. In the central issue facing any examination of leadership of Putin these contradictions are mirrored through the tendency of his governance. Moreover, it is not difficult to recognize the tensions in the ‘project’ supported by Putin; however, these tensions were the actual source of his potential. (Sakwa, pp. 879-897). Therefore, the leadership of Putin, in the mentioned context, can be viewed as traditional demonstration of Karl Polanyi’s vision regarding the natural inclination for society to adhere preventive measures alongside the devastations of the market, according to Polanyi this approach has the potential to destruct the bases of civilization (Polyani, 45-67). The pushing force of a society has always been its economy it was the phenomena of the past and will be the future. The association of economy influenced to think about social requirements. This was rejected in the early nineteenth century due to liberal faith that markets were self-regulating and spontaneously generating. However, the focal point of Polanyi’s argument was that the ambition to generate a self-regulating market surfaces a counterbalance and in it people oppose this self-generation, according to him it was a ‘double movement’. Thus, the principle of market freedom has been replied by ‘the principle of self-protection’, and, consequently leads to pushed in the economy within a structure that permits society to survive itself (Polanyi, p. 138). According to Polanyi the process is just like elastic band in one direction pull too far, similarly the society opposes and pulls powerfully in the conflicting course (Polanyi, p. 240). Thus, the counter movement of Putin which were perceived to be the overloads in the 1990s can be defined sufficiently through Polanyi’s theory. Moreover, the contradictions of society and contradictions of Putin’s leadership were mirroring each other. The historical legacy of Russia was in jeopardy or became a bone of contention. The past Soviet period was awarding the country with a different society and economy along with the experience of reorganization after Mikhail Gorbachev initiated perestroika in 1985 which influenced and furthered intricate the society. In 1991 the presidency of Boris Yeltsin and then his earlier resignation on 31 August 1999, viewed the appearance of Russia just like a free state and associated to the establishment of the capitalist democratic institutional framework protected in the constitution of December 1993. Nonetheless, the opportunity was lost because no radical transformation occurred in the institutional framework and nothing was done for the openness of spirit of society. The head of presidential security service of Yeltsin Alexander Korzhakov, who was standing close to Yeltsin on the tank during the attempted conservative coup of August 1991 stated the time after the August putsch the country seemed to hit the jackpot. It never happened in the history of the country prior to that event. Democrats won without shedding a single drop of blood. Moreover, the country, every man of the country was dying for a change whether through a magical wand (Korzhakov and Boris, p. 359). However, Yeltsin could not grab the opportunity in the sincere manners. Conclusively, in the current paper the argument about hegemony can be observed as fluid perception. Hegemony, moves and travel through time and vary according to the hierarchy’s consent and dissent. The character of Vladimir Putin in the context and culture of Russia is debatable. One cannot conclude that he has been responsible for all the ruin to Russia; other factors and leaders also share the burden of destruction of the great regime. Works Cited Anderson, Perry. "Russia’s managed democracy." London Review of Books 29.2 (2007): 3-12. Polanyi, Michael. Society, Economics, and Philosophy. Transaction Publishers, 1997. Polanyi, K. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time,Foreword by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Introduction by Fred Block (Boston, Beacon Press). (2001). Bogdanov, Konstantin. "Cyber Arms Race Could Change the World Around Us | Features & Opinion." RIA Novosti. N.p., 26 June 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2013. Bunce, Valerie. "Should transitologists be grounded?." Slavic Review 54.1 (1995): 111-127. Carnaghan, Ellen. Out of order: Russian political values in an imperfect world. Penn State Press, 2007. Cohen, Stephen F. "Russian studies without Russia." Post Soviet Affairs 15 (1999): 37-55. . ColeHarvey, “Putin in Perspective: Russia’s Democratic Authoritarian,” Pitt PoliticalReview,5 March 2008, < http://www.pittpoliticalreview.org/?p=36>. Accessed on 26/4/2013. Descalzi, Carmen Amelia Gayoso. Russian Hegemony in the CIS Region: An Examination of Russian Influence and of Variation in Consent and Dissent by CIS States to Regional Hierarchy. Diss. London School of Economics and Political Science (University of London), 2011. Demokrateund politische Justizin Russland(Munich: C.H.Beck oHG,2007), 52-53. Goldman, Marshall,“Ignore Sovietology at Your Peril,” Demokratizatsiya, 5, 4:515–521, Fall 1997. Holmes, Stephen. "Cultural Legacies or State Collapse? цит. по Michael Mandelbaum: Post-Communism: Four Perspectives." New York (1996): 25. Hanson, Stephen E., and Blair A. Ruble. "Rebuilding Russian Studies." Problems of Post-communism 52.3 (2005): 49-57. Korzhakov, Aleksandr, and Boris Yeltsin. "Ot rassveta do zakata (Moscow: Interbuk, 1997). 47. Compare the websites of the Russian ministry of justice on political parties." Mommsen, Margareta, and Angelika Nu?berger. Das System Putin: gelenkte Demokratie und politische Justiz in Russland. CH Beck, 2007. McFaul, Michael. “Russian Democracy:StillNota LostCause.” The Washington Quarterly 23:1, (2000):161-172. Machalek, Katherin. "The Paradox of the Putin Phenomenon: Democracy, Fairness, and Popular Support for President Vladimir Putin." cdr.lib.unc.edu. N.p., 2008. Web. . Stephen Whitefield, “Putin's popularity and it simplications for democracy in Russia,”in Leading Russia-Putin in Perspective: Essays in Honour of Archie Brown, ed. By Alex Pravda, (New York: Oxford UP, 2005), pp. 139-160. Read More