Politica Science - society and state in contemporary russia Essay

Politica Science - society and state in contemporary russia - Essay Example A democracy can broadly be defined as a government that has been set up by the people which essentially means that all people living under that government should be entitled to have their opinion considered in everything that affects their lives. Furthermore, democracy can also be exercised directly or indirectly through which people elect their representatives. In light of this, it is absurd that two decades down the line despite the dissolution of USSR president Yeltsin failed to horn our promise to better democracy and improve the lives of Russian citizens. This just proves that Russia is still categorized as one of the authoritarian states in Europe. As much as most of the leaders have improved the country’s economic status both domestic and international policies it is believed that from the essays â€Å"not free† a lot of factors have hindered Russia’s democracy development (Motyl 2005). For the first time power within Kremlin changed through the 2000, elec tion this process not only took place but was conducted according to the constitution more than two thirds of the eligible voters participated. They appeared to be well informed of choices to make. However, up to now Russian political conditions do not meet the criteria of democracy; a political framework must be adopted to understand democracy adequately (Chomsky, et al 2003). Some political analysts such as Joseph Schumpeter describes democracy as an institutional arrangement for arriving at a political decision that help politicians in the acquisition of the power necessary for them to decide by way of their struggling to obtain votes from the citizens (Josephi 2010). Basically his definition may suggest that countries only differ in the degree to which institutional conditions are satisfied. Perhaps that is the reason why president Yeltsin ascended to power and failed to live up to his promises. Most Russians still point out that with the rioting on October 2nd the liberal regim e suppressed the angry communists. After a time period of approximately ten years since 23 Russian citizens lost their lives, the Russian government is still expounding on the myth that the crackdown was just to topple Mr. Yeltsin political opponents (Lucas 2009). This left many with the view that Mr. Yeltsin is a democratic hypocrite who never had the people’s interests at heart. All he had was his own vested interests. From that moment, descending from power without going to prison for him was inevitable; perhaps that is why he saw in an inherited presidency system as a scapegoat; perhaps that is why he ensured Mr. Vladimir Putin came to power (Marot 2012). When United Russia party chanced to win a working majority in the 2003 Russian Parliamentary elections, the Russian president Putin was seen to set out and attempt to critically undercut most of the opposition parties that were active in the country. He instigated changes in various electoral policies that allowed the go vernment to effectively manage to shut out a variety of the smaller political parties focusing mainly on those that had been perceived as being key advocates of liberal democracy. Other changes that were made caused it to become extremely difficult for parties to manage to field presidential candidates in a presidential ballot (Ethridge and Handelman 2012). Following the unexpected resignation of President Boris Yeltsin in 2000 Vladimir was assigned to