THE EURASIAN (IMPERIAL) DEMOCRACY IN POST-SOVIET RUSSIA. Darina Grigorova
THE EURASIAN (IMPERIAL) DEMOCRACY
IN POST-SOVIET RUSSIA
There are too many definitions of Russian democracy in Post-Soviet Russia: “sovereign democracy” (Vladislav Surkov), “organic democracy” and “communal (sobornaya) democracy” (Alexander Dugin), “true democracy” (Alexander Solzhenitsyn), “managed democracy” (Leonid Radzikhovsky) etc.
This article describes the author’s characterisation of Russian democracy: the eurasian (imperial) democracy. The post-Soviet political culture in Russia follows the imperial traditions and the Russian-style democracy is created by the state authorities, not by the people. The characteristics of eurasian (imperial) democracy are:
- The sacralisation of presidential power combined with the civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
- The refusal to imitate the West-style democracy because of the strong, centralised power and the absence of traditions in local self-government except the Zemstva (1864−1917).
- The Russian government has the responsibility for preparing liberal reforms because the civil society in Russia is fragmentary and has no historical tradition to create the reforms. The street protests of the “i-dekabrists” against the election fraud in December 2011 represent the middle-class, but the majority of the Russian people support the prime minister.
- The relationship between government and the Russian people are personal, not pragmatic as in the West of Europe. The question of the future of eurasian democracy is how to keep the delicate balance between Kremlin and civil society in Russia.
The political system of Post-Soviet Russia is a combination of Enlightened authoritarianism and Eurasian democracy.